Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00370/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00370/B Applicant : Mr Jack Iddon Proposal : Erection of proposed garage and front porch extensions Site Address : 33 Fairway Drive Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2BD
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.06.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed rear extension has an unreasonable level of overshadowing and overlooking impact on neighbouring properties given its height, depth and overall design and therefore contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
31 Fairway Drive, Ramsey __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 33 Fairway Drive, Ramsey, a single-storey detached dwelling located northeast of Fairway Drive.
1.2 The house consists of a single-storey pitched-roof main dwelling, a single-storey pitched-roof front extension, a single-storey flat-roof rear extension and a flat-roof almost-full- length dormer on the rear elevation.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00370/B Page 2 of 4
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a pitched roof front extension and a rear extension on the exiting rear extension.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Removal of rooflights and extension of dormer on north-west elevation of property with windows from bedrooms at first floor level was APPROVED under PA 19/00437/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Ramsey Local Plan.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 3, 5 o Paragraph 4.3.11 o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (m) (n) o Paragraph 8.12.1 o Environment Policy 42 o Community Policy 7, 10 o Infrastructure Policy 5
PPS and NPD 4.3 There is no planning policy statement or national policy directive considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.5 Front Extensions o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Section 4.7 Flat Roof Extension o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners has no objection to this application (06.02.2023).
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (05.04.2023). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.
6.3 DoI Highway Drainage wrote in reminder that no surface water should be discharged into a public highway (06.04.2023).
6.4 31 Fairway Drive wrote in objection to this application (09.04.2023). The comment states the rear extension would overshadow and overlook their property. The comment also states the proposal would not fit with its surroundings and the proposed and there maybe safety impact on the existing retaining wall along the boundary.
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00370/B Page 3 of 4
7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and streetscene of the area and the amenities of the neighbours.
Design of the House Itself 7.2 The front extension has a pitched roof that fit into the existing roofscape and is therefore considered to have no negative impact on the character of the house.
7.3 The rear extension has a flat-roof. Since there are many flat-roof elements already being part of the house, the flat-roof is considered acceptable.
Character and Streetscene 7.4 The front extension is visible to the public. As mentioned in paragraph 7.2, it is considered to not have a negative impact on the character of the area.
7.5 The rear extension is not visible to the public. However, after the proposal, the rear extension as a whole would appear longer than the main dwelling. Nonetheless, it is considered that this is not a sufficient reason for recommending refusal.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.6 The front extension is considered to have no overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact on neighbouring amenities.
7.7 The rear extension is south of the garden of No.31. After using shadowcalculator.eu to assess the impact on lighting, it is noticed the new extension would lead to the majority of the garden of No.31 to be shadowed throughout a day in midwinter period. This level of overshadowing is considered to be unreasonable.
7.8 There is a double door facing the garden of No.31. While the room link to the door is used as a storage, internal layout can be altered without planning approval, meaning the door could be used for living accommodations. Therefore, it is considered that the level of overlooking is beyond reasonable.
Planning Balance Assessment 7.9 While the front extension is considered to be acceptable, the rear extension has an unreasonable overshadowing and overlooking impact on the neighbouring property and these impacts are sufficient for recommending a refusal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed rear extension has an unreasonable level of overshadowing and overlooking impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is recommend for a refusal.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00370/B Page 4 of 4
9.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 13.06.2023
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal